<span>Because those who weren't all for the Jacobin cause were thought to be secret royalists or whatever and their presense was a threat to the Committee and the Jaobins in charge. Robespierre and his allies who basically afraid and did whatever they could to ensure their grip on power was tight, obviously it did not work</span>
Answer:
The Three-Fifths Compromise established that a state’s enslaved population would be counted for partial representation.
Explanation:
The Three-Fifths Compromise was an agreement made between delegates during the Constitutional Convention (1787) that established that the number of seats in the House of Representatives for each state should be calculated in accordance to the number of free persons (excluding Indians not taxed) and the three-fifths of slaves in every state. In other words, the Compromise counted three out of every five slaves as people for partial representation. This agreement would increase the power of slave states.
Answer:
Yes, revolution is necessary in bringing about political change because it also brings social and economic changes which have the power to influence political change.
Answer:
Van Buren, who regarded himself as a disciple of Thomas Jefferson, was a member of the Jeffersonian faction of the Republican Party. He supported the doctrine of states' rights, opposed a strong federal government, and disapproved of federally sponsored internal improvements.
Explanation:
I don't really understand the difference between these two, politically, culturally, and economically. All I know between the two is that the Roman Republic are for the citizens of Rome. However, the Roman Empire is ruled by a Emperors. Now, the connotations of emperors are considered bad I think. But isn't Marcus Aurelius and Augustus very good leaders. Does anyone have some insight on how Roman R and Roman E differ from each other.
